Some questions about the Coding Guidlines

[theZiz]

I have some questions and unclearities about the coding guidlines.

no code alignment (only indention) What does this mean? No code like this

int result = my_fancy_function( parameter1, parameter2, parameter3, parameter4,
                                parameter5, parameter6, parameter7 );

but this

int result = my_fancy_function( parameter1, parameter2, parameter3, parameter4,
    parameter5, parameter6, parameter7 );

?

@ax3l:

int result = my_fancy_function(
    parameter1,
    parameter2,
    // ...
    parameter7
);

code inside the deepest namespace is indented This is missleading. What if I have such a code:

namespace foo
{
namespace traits
{
    template<
        typename T_Type
    >
    struct Bar;
} // namesspace traits

template<
    typename T_Type
>
void bar( T_Type t )
{
    traits::Bar::bar( t );
}

} // namespace foo

It fulfills the rule, but is this really the intended behaviour?

Template Class / Struct and Type Definitions There is no explicit rule, that the opening tocken of a template parameter needs to be bing to the template keyword, such that this is forbidden:

template <
    T_Keks
>

although it makes sense in the general context. However especially with these defintions over more than one line, it it harder to spot template< than template <. The same is in fact also true for function and method definitions, but ( is slimer and therefore better to spot, so the effect is not so strong. Is it really that important to forbid these spaces?

[ax3l]

eaasy :)

no code alignment (only indention)

no, >1 argument have all one line per argument

code inside the deepest namespace is indented

yes it is! often seen in traits and details scopes. but actually: the first level of non-namespace objects in indented from its namespace if that is still up to date @psychocoderHPC .

namespace foo
{
namespace traits
{
    template<
        typename T_Type
    >
    struct Bar;
} // namesspace traits

    void a();

    template<
        typename T_Type
    >
    void bar( T_Type t )
    {
        traits::Bar::bar( t );
    }

} // namespace foo

Template Class / Struct and Type Definitions

should be template< ... as with any opening bracket that belongs to it's opening "object".

[j-stephan]

Hijacking this old issue: I am currently working on a proposal to overhaul these coding guidelines. I see that we are referencing C++98 in some cases - do we still need to consider this quite ancient standard? Or can I remove those lines? @psychocoderHPC

[bernhardmgruber]

Thank you for proposing an overhaul!

IMO i would throw all the coding guidelines away that can be automated by clang-format. Then add a clang-format file and maybe annotate some of the options why they have been chosen this way.

[sbastrakov]

I think the suggestion of @bernhardmgruber is great, as that would keep everything at a single place (clang-format file), and so only one place needs to be updated/extended

[j-stephan]

clang-format is done but we will need clang-tidy as well to enforce all of our standards. Working on that now. I will upload both .clang-format and .clang-tidy once I'm done.

[psychocoderHPC]

Hijacking this old issue: I am currently working on a proposal to overhaul these coding guidelines. I see that we are referencing C++98 in some cases - do we still need to consider this quite ancient standard? Or can I remove those lines? @psychocoderHPC

No C++98 is IMO not ised anymore. We can focus on C++14 and newer.

[sbastrakov]

I agree, C++14 should be the minimal standard.